Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: Iraq War Funding/Timeline Vetoed...Opinions and Whats Next?

  1. #1
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like

    Iraq War Funding/Timeline Vetoed...Opinions and Whats Next?

    As the title says, the bill to fund the ongoing efforts in Iraq was passed with timelines for withdrawal, and as promised the President killed it dead.

    The questions:

    --How do you feel and what do you think about the Presidential veto of this Bill?

    --Where do we (the US, Congress, President) go from here? And are you pleased/displeased with the direction you think they are going?

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well according to law congress can't set timelines. But in all seriousness I hope Bush and the Congress will sit down and hammer out an agreement that everyone can live with. I think that would be a lasting legacy that everyone could live with.

  3. #3
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Somerset, NJ
    Posts
    1,573
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm confused by the publicity aspect to these deadlines. IMO setting hard deadlines where if certain criteria is not met would automatically launch the beginning of troop withdrawal and publicly announcing these dates is ridiculous.
    We should be setting up some test criteria which would launch the Pres and congress to revisit withdrawal, staying the course, or increasing trrops, but the criteria and any dates should be confidential.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]As the title says, the bill to fund the ongoing efforts in Iraq was passed with timelines for withdrawal, and as promised the President killed it dead.

    The questions:

    --How do you feel and what do you think about the Presidential veto of this Bill?

    --Where do we (the US, Congress, President) go from here? And are you pleased/displeased with the direction you think they are going?[/QUOTE]

    I think the Dems should do one of two things.

    1. They should keep sending him Bills to fund the troops containing timelines for withdrawal and let him keep vetoing then blame him for not doing whats necessary to provide our troops with funds.

    or

    2. Agree to provide funding but only for a limited time (say 2 months) with the agreement to provide further funding on a limited basis (2 months at a time) only if certain benchmarks are met.

  5. #5
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=sect112row36]I'm confused by the publicity aspect to these deadlines. IMO setting hard deadlines where if certain criteria is not met would automatically launch the beginning of troop withdrawal and publicly announcing these dates is ridiculous.
    We should be setting up some test criteria which would launch the Pres and congress to revisit withdrawal, staying the course, or increasing trrops, but the criteria and any dates should be confidential.[/QUOTE]

    Way to logical. Who would keep the criteria under lock and key.

  6. #6
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's an interesting question, what are the benifits of the Dems being so public about their timelines? Any Liberal or Dem want to answer?

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]It's an interesting question, what are the benifits of the Dems being so public about their timelines? Any Liberal or Dem want to answer?[/QUOTE]

    What difference does it make?
    Do you honestly believe that the guerillas in Iraq care about our timeline? Are they really going to stop their fight and wait until we are gone? These guys are fighting for their very existance. Our presence will not deter them. They know we cant occupy Iraq forever. They know sooner or later we will have to leave. Leaving sooner will only help us and alow the Sunnis and Shia fight it out for control of the land....smething they are going to do regardless of us.

    BTW how do you propose the Dems "hide" the timelines. Its a peace of legislation. Its a document that is public. Do you want to change the way we make bills in this country?

  8. #8
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]What difference does it make?
    Do you honestly believe that the guerillas in Iraq care about our timeline?

    [B][COLOR=DarkRed]Yes[/COLOR][/B]

    Are they really going to stop their fight and wait until we are gone?

    [B][COLOR=DarkRed]No. But it is useful information for them tacticly and strategicly.[/COLOR][/B]

    These guys are fighting for their very existance. Our presence will not deter them.

    [B][COLOR=DarkRed]The presence of a large Millitary force does not detar ANYONE from fighting or killing?[/COLOR][/B]

    They know we cant occupy Iraq forever.

    [B][COLOR=DarkRed]Actually, we easily CAN, if the will do do so is there. With half our countries leaders political futures resting on their previously made claims of a an already lost war, it is clearly in their interests to ensure that a lost war is the outcome.[/COLOR][/B]

    They know sooner or later we will have to leave.

    [B][COLOR=DarkRed]Of course they do, the Dems have made that very clear from almost the very first second, and very publicly too.[/COLOR][/B]

    Leaving sooner will only help us and alow the Sunnis and Shia fight it out for control of the land....smething they are going to do regardless of us.

    [B][COLOR=DarkRed]So you accept future genocide, and favor doing nothing to stop it then.[/COLOR][/B]

    BTW how do you propose the Dems "hide" the timelines. Its a peace of legislation. Its a document that is public. Do you want to change the way we make bills in this country?

    [B][COLOR=DarkRed]It is very easy and normal Govt. Business to make certain aspects of legislation (such as classified millitary project funding, for example) not explicitly laid out for public viewing. Better yet, do out outside of legislation, in private, so the President knows what the consequences are for failure.[/COLOR][/B][/QUOTE]

    Answered above.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,895
    Post Thanks / Like
    Specifically layed out timelines are impractical, but they are a good starting point for anti-war proponents in negotiating a concensus between Congress and the White House. Pressure needs to be put on the Iraqi government to start taking over responsibilities in their country as it has become painfully obvious that they are unwilling and unmotivated to do so independently.

    Rather than setting deadlines for withdrawl, our government should be setting deadlines for strategic benchmarks. If the Maliki government is unable to meet these benchmarks, they should be removed and replaced by a competent and balanced government with a completely new political strategy (perhaps splitting Iraq into three seperate states and diminishing the power of their federal government).

  10. #10
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,553
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]It's an interesting question, what are the benifits of the Dems being so public about their timelines? Any Liberal or Dem want to answer?[/QUOTE]i lean liberal, particularly socially, so i'll take a crack: political capital. and if the roles were reversed, so, too would be the opinions of the pols. it's a disgrace.

    "[b][color=DarkRed]It is very easy and normal Govt. Business to make certain aspects of legislation (such as classified millitary project funding, for example) not explicitly laid out for public viewing. Better yet, do out outside of legislation, in private, so the President knows what the consequences are for failure.[/color][/b][color=DarkRed][color=black]"

    that may be true, but there's a very large degree of legitimate mistrust here. the bush admin, you have to admit, has pretty much done what it felt it needed to do 'by any means necessary' - without regard to even the standards and ideals of it's own party. if you were a dem, why would you trust that, if the funds were passed through the legislature and the timetable/deadline/benchmarks/whatever were passed outside of law, the bush admin would comply?

    that said, i think the idea of stating a deadline for withdrawal is ludicrous, strategically. i also think withholding funds is ludicrous, if only because i don't think you can hurt our people on the ground over there that way. and we can't just pull out now, we've made the lives of iraquis immeasurably worse, by most if not all accounts. but we've got to figure out a way to keep this in check.
    [/color][/color]

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE]Originally Posted by kennyo7
    What difference does it make?
    Do you honestly believe that the guerillas in Iraq care about our timeline?

    Yes
    [B]Fine, we agree to disagree. Neither of us can prove this.[/B]
    Are they really going to stop their fight and wait until we are gone?

    No. But it is useful information for them tacticly and strategicly.

    [B]How so? And to which guerilla group would this be most useful?[/B]

    These guys are fighting for their very existance. Our presence will not deter them.

    The presence of a large Millitary force does not detar ANYONE from fighting or killing?

    [B]Have you been living in a vacuum? Everyday for the last 2 years anywhere from 25-100 Iraqis are being murdered. Doesnt seem to be deterring anyone. [/B]

    They know we cant occupy Iraq forever.

    Actually, we easily CAN, if the will do do so is there. With half our countries leaders political futures resting on their previously made claims of a an already lost war, it is clearly in their interests to ensure that a lost war is the outcome.

    [B]Wrong we Can not!! It has nothing to do with the will of the people. We simply are not meeting recruiting demands to keep up. Soldiers are already overstaying their tours of duty. We simply dont have the man power. Not to mention this war is costing us $6 Billion a MONTH. What is this cost counting towards? Maintaining a civil war at this level? Is that acceptable to you? And its not just the politicians who think the war is a lost cause. The majority of Americans do as well.
    They know sooner or later we will have to leave.[/B]

    Of course they do, the Dems have made that very clear from almost the very first second, and very publicly too.

    Leaving sooner will only help us and alow the Sunnis and Shia fight it out for control of the land....smething they are going to do regardless of us.

    So you accept future genocide, and favor doing nothing to stop it then.

    [B]Its not genocide. Its a civil war. This is nothing like what is happening in Darfur where one powerful entity is murdering an essentially helpless population. This is well armed and trained military groups killing each other. Do I accept it? Well after opening Pandora's Box by removing Saddam this was inevitible. Yes I do accept that this is the outcome whether we leave tomorrow or stay another 10 years[/B]

    BTW how do you propose the Dems "hide" the timelines. Its a peace of legislation. Its a document that is public. Do you want to change the way we make bills in this country?

    It is very easy and normal Govt. Business to make certain aspects of legislation (such as classified millitary project funding, for example) not explicitly laid out for public viewing. Better yet, do out outside of legislation, in private, so the President knows what the consequences are for failure.
    What you propose is illegal. This is not "classified information" . How can the president be kept responsible for consequences when no one knows what he is being held to?[/QUOTE]

    .

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    Anyone seen any poll about what our troops on the ground think about the 'rats bill? Or about Ws veto? My guess is they cheered at the veto!

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]
    The questions:

    --How do you feel and what do you think about the Presidential veto of this Bill?
    [b]I support it--since when do lawyers (most of congress) know anything about fighting a war? I do wish W would have just stated that he'd veto it once or twice and keep quiet until the 'rats gave him the bill and then veto it. Why keep telling them over and over?[/b]

    --Where do we (the US, Congress, President) go from here? And are you pleased/displeased with the direction you think they are going?

    [b]First I think it's asinine to say we can't win this war! The problem with America is we think wars are like fighting ants at a picnic--only the enemy dies, no innocent civs or fellow troops!

    This war has something in common with 9/11 and Katrina--and it's not that W is prez--all three are first time events: consequently lots of things went wrong or weren't done b/c no previous experience.
    Had passengers on the first three jets known what was happening, they would have acted just like Flight 93 and maybe the Trade towers would still be standing; who knows?

    Katrina wasn't the main problem, the flood was--have we ever had to deal with such devastation in a major city b/4? No! Personally I think it's stupid to rebuild in those areas and "hope" the new levees don't ever break again!

    Beating Saddumb's army was a piece of cake and "Mission Accomplished" in that sense, was true, but we're finding out fighting a theocratic insurgency that believes their god is smiling on them, is a whole new ball game. Any MMQB can criticize, but in reality its on-the-job-training as we go.

    The idea that W dreamed up all the military plans on his own w/o input from the military experts, is also asinine! And I doubt there was unanimous thinking among the experts, but eventually a course of action is decided upon, plans made, logistics implemented and the war was started. [/b]

    [/QUOTE]

    My $.02 worth!

  14. #14
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,553
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=asuusa][b] The idea that W dreamed up all the military plans on his own w/o input from the military experts, is also asinine![/b][/QUOTE]i truly don't think many believe that - especially in the face of the 'experts', former military advisors coming out to say their advice was ignored by rummy and the crew.

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=asuusa]Anyone seen any poll about what our troops on the ground think about the 'rats bill? Or about Ws veto? My guess is they cheered at the veto![/QUOTE]

    My guess it was no better than 50/50.
    Based on what most vets here at my VA tell me, most would prefer limits placed on this war with the idea of getting outif benchmarks are not met. They do not believe we should be giving any more blank checks to a man with a track record for failure that Dubya has.

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    If the Iraq govenment was capable of governing, we wouldn't need to be their so why would we leave if they can't reach benchmarks toward governing the country? Either we have a stratigic reason to be their or we don't. If we don't we should walk away this second, if we do it seems the more Iraq can't govern themselves the more troops and time will be needed. The entire debate makes no sense to me. If the Iraq government can't govern and we need Iraq, unload the government and declare marshall law and put in a reconstruction government lead by the US.

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]If the Iraq govenment was capable of governing, we wouldn't need to be their so why would we leave if they can't reach benchmarks toward governing the country? [B]Either we have a stratigic reason to be their or we don't. If we don't we should walk away this second, if we do it seems the more Iraq can't govern themselves the more troops and time will be needed. [/B] The entire debate makes no sense to me. If the Iraq government can't govern and we need Iraq, unload the government and declare marshall law and put in a reconstruction government lead by the US.[/QUOTE]

    I agree, we dont have a strategic reason to be there. Lets leave.
    If as you say the Iraq Government can not govern themselves how is more troops going to help that government learn how to govern itself?

    If as you say the government needs to be replaced, then who do you propose we replace it with?

  18. #18
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    7,992
    Post Thanks / Like
    This kinda veered off topic. The original question was about the veto.

    The Dems knew damn well Bush would veto the bill. They'd look a lot better if they stripped the ridiculous pork out of the bill and had him veto an honest document.

    Their views are diametrically opposed, and there doesn't seem to be middle ground. Sit back and watch our country's unique system of checks and balances get put to the test.

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]I agree, we dont have a strategic reason to be there. Lets leave.
    If as you say the Iraq Government can not govern themselves how is more troops going to help that government learn how to govern itself?

    If as you say the government needs to be replaced, then who do you propose we replace it with?[/QUOTE]

    It's over for us. We should have put our own reconstruction government in place until the country was up and running. The Bush administration never made a serious commitment to reconstruction or security. With out that this is a waste of US money and manpower. It's time to leave neither the Dems or the Republicans or the American public has the will to do what needs to be done and the Bush administration clearly lacks the talent and vision even if we had the will to do it.

  20. #20
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]If the Iraq govenment was capable of governing, we wouldn't need to be their so why would we leave if they can't reach benchmarks toward governing the country? Either we have a stratigic reason to be their or we don't. If we don't we should walk away this second, if we do it seems the more Iraq can't govern themselves the more troops and time will be needed. The entire debate makes no sense to me. If the Iraq government can't govern and we need Iraq, unload the government and declare marshall law and put in a reconstruction government lead by the US.[/QUOTE]

    The only reason Bush wont walk out of Iraq is:
    The fear of the whole Middle East being drawn into a Civil War between Sunni's and Shia's. This to me is a very strong possibility. The Saudi's have already stated they would stand by and let Sunni Muslims be slaughtered.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us